. . . the vision President Trump has been articulating, . . .
I sorry, but somehow "vision" and "articulating" are not words I associate with President Trump. Of course, his message may be lost in his bombastic manner but the only thing that gets through seems to be "freeloaders" and "me, me, me". But not wanting to get into the all too common argument about the worth or worthlessness of Mr. Trump's approach to diplomacy, I'll just give my view of what is happening with NATO. They are continuing on the same path that they started on long before the possibility of a Trump presidency was contemplated. There have been some refinements to account for the turmoil of Trump but most of these changes are perhaps a direct response to Russia. It is likely that some of the Russia response is also due to a feeling that the current US president is a little too cozy with the Russian president. It wouldn't surprise me that the pre-summit negotiations that resulted in the agreed declaration were as much representative of the opinions of the senior members of the US security team, i.e. Bolton, Mattis, et al.
While the Brussels Summit Declaration is not an easily read, concise document, some impressions can be gleaned from its organization. In its 79 paragraphs, it starts off with some general comments in para 1 about the organization and its goals. Para 3 affirms the Wales agreement, i.e. 2% defense spending. Then paras 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 specifically are aimed at Russia as the threat to NATO, its member states and partners and generally Russia as a threat to world peace - para 8 does deal with the possibility of negotiating with Russia favourably but para 9 sets it in its place as being historically untrustworthy. Paras 10 and 11 deal with the terrorism threat. Paras 12 and 13 are essentially a preamble to a discussion of the changes/initiatives that NATO are already undertaking or have agreed to. Para 14, as I quoted in my previous post, deals with the NATO Readiness Initiative. There really is little new other than some reorganization that (in my opinion) is almost a message to Russia of "don't frig with us". But it is a subtle message, maybe because it was released prior to Mr. Trump's meeting with Mr. Putin and they had to take into account the personality of the president.
As for the NATO Readiness Initiative (Four Thirties), it seems that not only is for existing forces (no new troops) the numbers appear to be based on the total of NATO elements on 30 days readiness and would not be in addition to any existing forces with a short readiness period.